Scope and Criteria 

Please visit this link to learn more about the journal before beginning your report. 

NAR receives far more submissions than it can publish. To be considered for publication, a manuscript must present some novel development and meet the general criteria of originality, timeliness, significance, and scientific excellence. Reviewers are asked to consider this when making their recommendation to the Editor.  

Read the full criteria for consideration for all manuscript types. 

The Peer-Review Process 

Please follow the link to read about NAR’s peer-review process.

Copies of all the reviews are sent anonymously to the Referees once the Editor has reached a decision. These are for information only and strictly confidential. 

Conflict of Interest 

We expect Referees to disclose conflicts of interest when they are first invited to review a manuscript. Conflicts of interest include but are not limited to: 

• One or more of the Authors are from the same institution as the Referee. 
• Recent or ongoing collaboration with one or more of the Authors. 
• Referee saw a draft of the manuscript before submission. 
• Authors and Referee are in direct competition. 
• Conflict or dispute with the Authors.
• Financial/commercial interest. 
• Referee has a close personal relationship with or is related to one of the Authors.

However, the fact that a Referee has previously reviewed the same manuscript for another journal does not constitute a conflict of interest. 

Ethical Considerations 

NAR is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and we recommend that all reviewers read their guidelines for reviewers at https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf, which address important considerations, including the following: 

• Please consult the Editor if you have a potential conflict or decline their invitation to review if you have a known conflict, with the author(s) and/or the content itself. 
• We rely on reviewers for conducting reviews in accordance with, and to uphold, the standards of the journal. While there are potential opportunities arising from generative AI, please ensure these types of tools and resources are not used as a substitute for your expert opinion and do not supersede your own judgment. 
• Maintaining confidentiality both throughout and following the review process is important, so please do not share information about this manuscript, its content, or your review with any person or entity, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI tools. However, you are welcome to involve a member of your laboratory or an early career scientist in the review process – see ‘Mentoring an Early Career Researcher’ section below. Please inform the Editor if you wish to do so. 

NAR considers referee reports to be confidential. They should not be made publicly available without the express permission of the Editors. NAR may opt to transfer manuscripts that are scientifically sound but too incremental or out of scope to a related OUP journal, along with the referees’ names and reports. Anonymity will be maintained but if you object to this, please do let the Editor know. 

Mentoring an Early Career Researcher 

You are welcome to involve a member of your laboratory or an early career scientist in the review process. If you choose to do so, please inform the Editor when you agree to review. 

In Section 4 of the referee report, select ‘Yes’ in response to the question, ‘Were you assisted with this review?’ If you answer 'Yes', please provide the name and email address of the individual who assisted you. To ensure proper recognition for this review for your co-reviewer, please follow the instructions provided by the Web of Science. 

Publishing Ethics 

Referees should report any breach of publishing ethics that they identify directly to the Editor. The following may constitute a breach: 

• Plagiarism 
• Manipulated images/photos/figures 
• Biased reference list 
• Duplicate publication 
• Data from previous publication reused without proper referencing 

Anonymous Entry to Authors' Websites 

Some manuscripts include information held on the Author's website which you may need to access while reviewing the manuscript. To avoid any compromise of Referee anonymity you may wish to do this using an anonymizer. Neither Oxford University Press nor the Nucleic Acids Research Editors endorse or recommend any particular anonymizer, and can accept no responsibility for any such site. 

Accessing the Referee Report 

All reviews must be submitted via our online manuscript tracking system, ScholarOne Manuscripts. 

There are two ways to access the manuscript, (i) by clicking on the link provided in the instruction email, or (ii) by logging directly into the Referee centre on ScholarOne Manuscripts. The manuscript can be found in the Referee centre under 'Review and Score'. Clicking on the 'Perform Review' button will give access to the score sheet and full instructions. 

Each manuscript record contains 4 tabs: Proof, Files, Details which provides basic information such as the manuscript title and abstract, and Instructions. 

Click Proof to view all the manuscripts files consolidated into a single HTML or PDF file. 

Please note: not all the supplementary files (videos, excel files, etc) will be displayed in the final HTML or PDF and you may need to view such files separately. 

Under ‘Files’ are two further links to the Original Files and Supplemental Files. 'Original files' gives access to the manuscript file(s) and the Author’s response to previous Referees’ comments for revised or resubmitted manuscripts. If provided, ‘Supplementary Files’ gives access to Supplementary Information, which may include original data files. 

To do external searches by keywords in PubMed, HighWire or Google, click on ‘Search Tool.’ 

Important: Please click on the ‘Save as Draft’ button regularly to avoid being logged out of the system and losing any work in progress. 

Data Deposition 

Please check the Data Deposition table at the beginning of the compiled PDF for details of data, repository, and links / token / login credentials for referees.  Experimental data and/or analysis and validation reports may have been provided by the authors.  If so, such files would be found under Files > Supplementary Files. If such files are available and you wish to make use of that information during your evaluation of the manuscript, please maintain complete confidentiality and delete any files that you download at the end of your evaluation. 

Completing the Referee Report 

The Referee's report is made up of 7 different sections; all sections must be completed before submission. 

• Section 1: recognition on Web of Science. 
• Section 2: manuscript rating on Significance, Originality, Scientific Quality and General Interest (please use the full range of ratings). 
• Section 3: custom questions regarding manuscript length, figures, methods, supplementary material, quality of English, statistical analyses, data deposition and whether the manuscript should be highlighted as Breakthrough Article after publication. 
• Section 4: details of co-reviewer, if applicable. 
• Section 5 : recommendation (Accept, Reject etc.) 
• Section 6: confidential comments to the Editor. 
• Section 7: comments for the Authors. 

Referees should approach each manuscript with an impartial and positive but critical mind. Comments to the Authors must be constructive, clearly identifying the manuscript's strengths and weaknesses, and providing tangible suggestions for improvement. Offensive language is not acceptable. Referees will not be able to edit their report once it is submitted, so should not include anything in the Comments for the Authors that they would not wish the Authors to read. 

The ideal report should be organized as follows: 

• An introductory paragraph placing the manuscript in a broader context, describing the contribution of the manuscript to the field, summarizing the manuscript's main findings and claims, and giving the Referee's overall impression of the manuscript. 
• Specific comments which should be further divided into Major and Minor Comments. 
• Suggestions to improve the manuscript. These may include: 
  • new experiments or improvements to the described experiments 
  • addition/deletion of references 
  • changes to the text to improve presentation, quality of English, length etc. 

Instructions regarding Critical Review and Perspective manuscripts 

The Critical Review and Perspective category accommodates primarily review articles, although it is flexible in content and format. The best of the Critical Review and Perspective articles present a synthesis of ideas within a field, explain why the subject is important, and draw in both the specialist and the nonspecialist. Several Critical Review and Perspective articles have been highlighted on our web site as among our frequently downloaded papers, and articles may be cited for many years depending on the area. It would be helpful to have your opinion on the details (are the citations accurate? Is the article balanced?) as well as its overall significance, originality, and potential impact on its field. 

Instructions regarding statistical analyses and validations 

Materials and Methods, and corresponding descriptions of actual experimental should contain, anywhere relevant: 

1. The exact sample size (n) for each experimental group/condition, given as a number, not a range. 
2. A description of the sample collection allowing the reader to understand whether the samples represent technical or biological replicates (including how many animals, litters, cultures, etc.) 
3. A statement of how many times an experiment shown was replicated in the laboratory. 
4. Definitions of statistical methods and measures: 

• Common tests, such as t-test, simple χ2 tests, Wilcoxon, and Mann-Whitney tests, can be unambiguously identified by name only, but more complex techniques should be described in detail. 
• Are tests one-sided or two-sided? 
• Are there adjustments for multiple comparisons? 
• Statistical test results, e.g., P values; 
• Definition of 'center values' as median or average; definition of error bars as standard deviations (s.d.) or standard error of the mean (s.e.m.) 

Instructions regarding the presentation of experimental data as computer images 

• No specific feature within an image may be enhanced, obscured, moved, removed, or introduced. 
• The grouping of images from different parts of the same gel, or from different gels, fields, or exposures (i.e. the creation of a "composite image") must be made explicit by the arrangement of the figure (i.e., using dividing lines) and by the text of the figure legend. 
• Adjustments of brightness, contrast, or colour balance are acceptable if they are applied to the whole image and if they do not obscure, eliminate, or misrepresent any information present in the original, including the background. Non-linear adjustments (e.g., changes to gamma settings) must be disclosed in the figure legend. Alteration of brightness or contrast resulting in the disappearance of any features in a gel (either bands or cosmetic blemishes) or similar alterations in other experimental images is forbidden. 

Breakthrough Articles 

'Breakthrough Articles' present high-impact studies answering long-standing questions in the field of nucleic acids research and/or opening up new areas and mechanistic hypotheses for investigation. Breakthrough Articles represent the best papers published at NAR.  These articles are chosen by the Editors on the recommendation of Editorial Board Members and Referees. We encourage Reviewers to nominate manuscripts as potential Breakthrough Articles by selecting "Yes" to the relevant question in their report. Articles are accompanied by a brief synopsis/lay summary explaining the findings of the paper and where they fit in the broader context of nucleic acids research.  

Editorial Decision 

Referees should not include a recommendation regarding publication in their comments to the Authors. This decision rests solely with the Editor. However, Referees may use Section 6 of the Referee report to make confidential comments to the Editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication. 

In the event of conflicting Referee reports, the Editor may invite a new Referee, possibly a member of the Editorial Board, to comment on the manuscript. The Editor may inform the new Referee of the conflict and may give him/her access to the previous Referee reports without disclosing the Referees' names. 

Based on the Referees' comments, the Editor may then take one of the following decisions: 

• Reject: usually due to a lack of novelty or because the manuscript is too specialized/lacks general interest, the conclusions are not supported by the evidence, or the manuscript is experimentally not sound. 
• Reject with possible resubmission: the manuscript falls within our criteria for consideration but is unsuitable in its current format. 
• Reject with transfer: the manuscript is not suitable for NAR but may be transferred to an alternative relevant OUP title. 
• Major revisions. 
• Accept with minor revisions. 
• Accept. 

Referees' reports are generally not edited by the Editor before being sent to the Authors. However, Editors retain the right to remove any inappropriate language, confidential information, or recommendation for publication without consultation with the Referee.